Final Order / Judgement

(Delivered on 18/03/2017)

Per Mr. B. A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. This appeal is filed by original complainants against the order dated 15/06/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. 58/2007 (New), 419/1997 (old) by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are as under.

The deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam was the son of original complainant No. 1 and father of minor complainant Nos. 2,3 and 4. He had purchased five policies from opposite party (for short OP) No. 1/LIC to cover risk of his life. He died during the period of said policies. His wife also died prior to his death. The complainant Nos. 2,3 and 4 being his legal heirs submitted claim to the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 who is the Branch Manager of OP No. 1. The complainants also furnished requisite documents as demanded by OP No. 2 from time to time. Their claim was not settled by OP No. 1. Therefore they filed consumer complaint before the Forum claiming total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as assured under those policies. They further claimed interest over Rs. 1,50,000/- at the rate of 15 percent per annum and notice charges of Rs. 150/- and cost of the complaint.

3. The said complaint was resisted  by OP Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their reply.
4. Initially the District Forum, Nagpur had passed final order on 4/9/1998 in the said complaint and thereby the complaint was allowed and OP Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay the total assured amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under five policies to the complainants with interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum from 29/10/1994 till its realization by them and also  to pay them cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The direction  was also given under that order dated 4/9/1998 to keep in fixed deposit, ¼ amount in the name of each of the complainant Nos. 2 to 4 in any nationalized bank till they attend the age of maturity and their guardian  complainant No. 1 was allowed to received the interest on the said deposits for the maintenance  of minor complainant Nos. 2 to 4.
5. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 had challenged that order by filing appeal No. 2291/1998 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai. The appeal was then transferred to Circuit Bench Nagpur. This Circuit Bench after hearing both the parties passed an order on 12/10/2006 in that appeal and thereby remanded the aforesaid complaint to the Forum to join the employer of the deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam i.e.  concerned bank as OP No. 3 to the complaint. However this Circuit Bench in that order dated 12/10/2006 recorded findings that out of  each five polices, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 admitted  three policies bearing Nos. 971789935, 971905294 and 971908825. Therefore the order of the Forum dated 4/09/1998 was confirmed the order dated 4/9/1998 so far as claim of complainant for payment of sum assured under the said three policies to the complainant. This Commission under that order  of remand dated 12/10/2006 left open the contentions of both the parties relating to remaining two policies bearing Nos. 971959835 and 971960830 to be considered by the Forum after remand. The total amount of both the policies assured was  Rs. 60,000/-
6. Accordingly, after remand of complaint, the District Consumer Forum  allowed the complainant to join the Nagpur District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd.,  the employee of the deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam as OP No. 3.Accordingly,  the OP No. 3 was impleaded in the complaint.
7. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply filed before the Forum mainly contended that both the aforesaid policies bearing Nos. 971959835 and 971960830 were already in  lapsed condition as premiums of the said policies were not received by them from March 1993  and February  1993 respectively till the death of Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam, who died on 13/03/1994. Thus, OP Nos. 1 and 2 contended that no claim under the said two polices is payable to the complainants.
8. However during the pendency of that complaint after its remand  before the Forum, the OP No. 3  produced copy of its latter dated 29/03/1997 by which  it was informed  by it to OP No. 2, Branch Manager of LIC  that it has already forwarded the cheque for premium of the months of March 1993 and April 1993 towards the policies of deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam including his policy bearing No. 971960830.
9. The Forum, however after hearing both the parties  after  remand of the complaint, passed  impugned order on 15/06/2007 and thereby partly allowed  the complaint and directed the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the benefits of only one policy bearing No. 971959835 of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of death of deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam  till its realization by the legal heirs of the deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam as per Guardianship certificate issued by 6^th Addl. District Judge, Nagpur under Guardians and Wards Act. The Forum, however directed the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of the complaint. The Forum dismissed the complaint as against OP No. 3.
10. The Forum however under that impugned order did not  grant the benefits of another  policy No. 971960830 holding that it was not the salary deduction policy and that OP No. 3 admitted that the deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam did not furnish policy number and certificate of that policy to OP No. 3.  Hence the complainants are not entitled to the benefits of that policy. Thus, feeling aggrieved by refusal of grant of benefits of the policy No. 971960830, this appeal is filed by original complainants.
11. We have heard advocate Mr. Lokhande appearing for the appellant and advocate Mrs. Smita Deshpande appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / original OP Nos. 1 and 2. We have also heard advocate Mr. V.L. Deshpande appeared for respondent No. 3. We also perused the material placed before us by both the parties which was filed before the Forum.
12. Thus, the dispute left is only  relating to one policy bearing No. 971960830. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Forum did not consider the letter dated 20/03/1997 filed before the Forum by OP No.3/respondent No. 3 herein in which it was admitted that the premium of the policy No. 971960830 was within the acknowledge of OP No. 3 and premium of the months of March 1993 and April 1993 were deducted by OP No. 3 from the salary of deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam and remitted by it to OP No. 1. Thus, the Forum erred in rejecting the claim under that policy erroneously and hence the same may be granted.
13. On the other hand,  the learned advocate of OP Nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order and submitted that the said policy was already in lapsed condition  due to non payment of the premium. Hence she requested that appeal may be dismissed.
14. The learned advocate of OP No. 3 submitted that an appropriate order may be passed after considering the evidence brought on record.
15. We find that the Forum did not consider the copy of the letter dated 29/03/1997 by which the OP No. 3/employer of the deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam  as addressed to appellant/original OP nos. 1 and 2had clearly stated that premium of the policy No. 971960830 for the months of March 1993 and April 1993 were already forwarded by it to the OP No. 2/LIC. The said document is not denied by OP Nos. 1 and 2. The material particulars of that policy No. 971960830 were known to the OP No. 3/Bank as it was Salary Saving Scheme under which said policy was issued.
16. Moreover, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply filed before the Forum also admitted that they had received the premium of that policy paid in January 1993, excluding the premium of month of December 1992. Deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam died on 13/03/1994.
17.  It is thus proved that the OP No. 3 acted as agent of OP Nos. 1 and 2 as it was to deduct  the premium from the salary of deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam monthly from his all the aforesaid policies and to send the same to OP No. 2/LIC regularly. No intimation  was given  by OP Nos. 1 and 2 to the deceased Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam when they did not receive premium from OP No. 3 about policy No. 971960830. The Hon’ble national Commission in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeshwar and others, I (1994) CPJ (NC) has observed that the fault is either  of the LIC or employer of the deceased policy holder and therefore the claim under policy is payable.  
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in well known case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi and another, AIR (2000) SC 43 held that in salary saving scheme of LIC, the employer will be a agent of LIC   as per provision of  Section 182 of Contract Act and when the premium was not  collected  by employer by deducting from salary of its employee then  insured claim is payable to the representative of the deceased employee.
19. Thus, we find that in the instant case as OP No. 3 was the agent of OP Nos. 1 and 2 as per provisions of Section 182 of Contract Act, under Salary Saving Scheme, OP Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to provided  benefits of refund of policy No. 971960830 to the complainant Nos. 2 to 4  as their agent/ OP No. 3 failed to perform its duty as agent under Salary Saving Scheme relating to the policy. Thus, we hold that the Forum erred in dismissing the complaint for the claim of policy NO. 971960830. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed for granting the said claim.

ORDER

1. Appeal is partly allowed as under.

          The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed  to provide all the benefits of policy No. 971960830 to the original complainant  Nos. 2, 3 and 4/appellant Nos. 2,3 and 4 with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum  from the date of the death of Mr. Dhanraj S. Tidagam, that is from 13/03/1994 till its realization by them.

II. No order as to cost in appeal.

III. Copy of order be furnished free of cost to both the parties.